{"id":261493,"date":"2008-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-01T01:29:01","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T19:59:01","slug":"the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Nishita Mhatre<\/div>\n
vss\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                        WRIT PETITION NO.3235 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n      The Chairman, Shri Maharani\n      Radhabai Vidyarthi Vasatigraha & Anr. ... Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                 V\/s.\n\n      Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale & Anr. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n      Mr.Rajesh Kachare for Petitioners\n      Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for Respondent No.1\n      Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Resp. No.2\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                        CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                   J<\/p>\n
                                        DATED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2008<\/p>\n
      ORAL JUDGEMENT:\n<\/p>\n
      .         The     petition challenges the order of the School<\/p>\n
      Tribunal      dated    31.3.1999 in Appeal No.33 of 1997.                     By<\/p>\n
      this    order, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal                       and<\/p>\n
      directed      the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1 in<\/p>\n
      service in the same position as he was when his services<\/p>\n
      were terminated.        Backwages have been ordered to be paid<\/p>\n
      together      with consequential benefits from November 1995<\/p>\n
      till    reinstatement        in service.     The Education           Officer<\/p>\n
      has    been    directed      to    deduct   the   salary        and     other<\/p>\n
      benefits      payable to the appellant i.e.            Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
      herein    from    the grants of the petitioner in the                   event<\/p>\n
      the    backwages      were    not    paid within 40       days       of     the<\/p>\n
      receipt of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                          : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.          The      facts    giving rise to the present             petition<\/p>\n
    are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
    Petitioner        No.1 is an institution which runs the school<\/p>\n
    known      as    Girls      High School Radhanagari of            which       the<\/p>\n
    petitioner        No.2      is the Headmistress.       The      school        was<\/p>\n
    established          in   1987 with one division for            each      class<\/p>\n
    from the 5th standard to 10th standard.                  The petitioners<\/p>\n
    were accorded permission to start the second division of<\/p>\n
    the    6th standard in the school on 20.10.1994.                     Prior to<\/p>\n
    this    on 1.8.1994.          The petitioners appointed the               first<\/p>\n
    respondent<\/p>\n
                      on probation for two years.            Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
    approved        of    the    appointment of Respondent            No.1      (for<\/p>\n
    short,      hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’)                        on<\/p>\n
    probation         for       two   years    by   a   communication               of<\/p>\n
    12.11.1995.           Five    days    thereafter,    a    direction           was<\/p>\n
    issued      by the Education officer to close the additional<\/p>\n
    division        of the 6th standard since there was a lack                      of<\/p>\n
    students.         The     petitioners were directed to close                  the<\/p>\n
    additional           division       on    17.11.1995.         It       appears<\/p>\n
    thereafter        on 2.1.1996, the Education Officer                 approved<\/p>\n
    of    an    additional        division of the 7th        standard         on     a<\/p>\n
    non-grant        basis.       By a communication dated            23.3.1996,<\/p>\n
    the     petitioners          then    terminated     the     services            of<\/p>\n
    Respondent        No.1      w.e.f.    30.4.1996.    According          to     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners,          this    order of termination was            served        on<\/p>\n
    Respondent        No.1 and has been acknowledged by him.                      The<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent,       however,     contends that his           services          were<\/p>\n
    terminated from July 2007.            According to the respondent,<\/p>\n
    he    was permitted to work upto June 2007 and it was only<\/p>\n
    in    July   2007 that the petitioners prevented                    him      from<\/p>\n
    working      in    the   school.          Being    aggrieved          by       the<\/p>\n
    termination of his services, the respondent preferred an<\/p>\n
    appeal before the School Tribunal.                He contended that he<\/p>\n
    was appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and that<\/p>\n
    he had completed the probationary period satisfactorily.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    The    respondent      contended      that    he was       deemed         to     be\n\n    permanent     in     service in view of the fact that                   he     had\n\n    completed     the     two\n                              ig years    as a    probationer.              He     has\n\n<\/pre>\n
    pleaded further that the headmistress prevented him from<\/p>\n
    teaching     in    the school and he was asked to                  leave       the<\/p>\n
    school    premises.      No reasons were assigned to him                     when<\/p>\n
    he     was   obstructed       from       working    on     1.7.1997.             He<\/p>\n
    therefore     claimed       that    he should be        reinstated           with<\/p>\n
    continuity      of    service      and    full    backwages         alongwith<\/p>\n
    incidental benefits.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        The     petitioners contested the appeal by                     filing<\/p>\n
    the    written statement.          They contended that a memo                  has<\/p>\n
    been    issued to the respondent because his behaviour and<\/p>\n
    character     was not good.         This memo is dated 22.12.1995.\n<\/p>\n
    The    petitioner      has    also       contended      that       they      were<\/p>\n
    directed     by    the   Education Officer          to     terminate           the<\/p>\n
    services of the respondent since the additional division<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    of   the 6th standard could not function due to the                          lack<\/p>\n
    of   students.        The    petitioners      claim       that      they       had<\/p>\n
    informed     the      respondent      of     this     decision          of     the<\/p>\n
    Education    Officer        on 23.1.1996 itself.             They       further<\/p>\n
    pleaded     that      the    termination      of    service           of       the<\/p>\n
    respondent      was    effected      on    30.4.1996,        after        giving<\/p>\n
    notice    to the respondent dated 29.3.1996.                   It was        also<\/p>\n
    contended    that      the    appeal had been         filed        after       the<\/p>\n
    period    of one year and, therefore, was not maintainable<\/p>\n
    in   view of the limitation prescribed u\/s 9 of the                          MEPS<\/p>\n
    Act.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        The     School      Tribunal       after      considering            the<\/p>\n
    evidence    on    record has held that the services                     of     the<\/p>\n
    respondent      were terminated in July 1997.                The      Tribunal<\/p>\n
    has also held that the respondent had proved that he had<\/p>\n
    satisfactorily        completed      his    probationary           period        in<\/p>\n
    service.     It    was      also     held    that     the      respondent’s<\/p>\n
    services    had been illegally terminated and that he                          was<\/p>\n
    entitled to the reliefs claimed in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        The    learned      advocate for the          petitioners            has<\/p>\n
    submitted    that      the    petitioners        had      terminated           the<\/p>\n
    services     of    the      respondent      by   the       letter          dated<\/p>\n
    29.3.1996.       The    termination was effected on                 30.4.1996<\/p>\n
    and,   therefore,       the Tribunal has erred             in      concluding<\/p>\n
    that the termination of services had taken place in July<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                      : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    1997.      He submits that there is voluminous             documentary<\/p>\n
    evidence       on record to indicate that the respondent                 was<\/p>\n
    not in service after April 1996.           He contends that being<\/p>\n
    a     probationer,    the    respondent’s     services        could        be<\/p>\n
    terminated       at any point of time.      He points out that it<\/p>\n
    was     because    the    Education Officer    had     directed          the<\/p>\n
    petitioners       to terminate the services of the respondent<\/p>\n
    because     there were very few students in the              additional<\/p>\n
    division       created    for   the 6th   standard.        He     further<\/p>\n
    submits     that    the School Tribunal has misconstrued                 the<\/p>\n
    documentary       evidence on record which indicates that the<\/p>\n
    respondent did not teach the students after April 1996.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         The learned advocate relies on the judgment of a<\/p>\n
    learned     Single Judge of this Court (Marlapalle, J.)                    in<\/p>\n
    the     case    of Head master, Amar High Schook,            Aurangabad<\/p>\n
    v\/s.      Lata      d\/o      Gajanan      Suryawanshi         &      anr.,<\/p>\n
    2005(1)Mh.L.J.       1150 in support of his submission                 that<\/p>\n
    on    account of reduction of the strength of the students<\/p>\n
    resulting      in the abolition of the post, the             petitioner<\/p>\n
    had    to terminate the services of the respondent who was<\/p>\n
    a probationer and that such an employee was not entitled<\/p>\n
    to reinstatement in service.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        The     learned advocate for the respondent               states<\/p>\n
    that    the school tribunal has committed no error of                    law<\/p>\n
    requiring      interference from this Court.         He urges          that<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    this    Court      should not exercise its jurisdiction                   under<\/p>\n
    Article     227<\/a>      of    the   Constitution       of    India        as     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners        have not been able to demonstrate that                     the<\/p>\n
    findings      of     the School Tribunal are perverse                or     that<\/p>\n
    they    are    based on no material on record.                The      learned<\/p>\n
    advocate submits that the respondent was not served with<\/p>\n
    a    copy   of the termination letter dated               29.3.1996           and<\/p>\n
    therefore,      it     was not possible for the           respondent            to<\/p>\n
    challenge      that       order.    In fact, submits          the      learned<\/p>\n
    advocate,      the     respondent was permitted to continue                     in<\/p>\n
    service     upto      30.6.1997.       It was only on 1.7.1997              that<\/p>\n
    the    Headmistress<\/p>\n
                                of   the    school    prevented        him      from<\/p>\n
    teaching      the     students     and from      entering       the      school<\/p>\n
    premises.       He     submits that the petitioners               could       not<\/p>\n
    have    terminated the services of the respondent                      without<\/p>\n
    following      the procedure stipulated in the MEPS Act                       and<\/p>\n
    the    rules framed thereunder.            He draws my attention                to<\/p>\n
    the fact that the respondent has worked for two years as<\/p>\n
    a    probationer       and    therefore, must be deemed to                be     a<\/p>\n
    permanent       workman       on   completion      of    two      years         of<\/p>\n
    probation.         He submits that a permanent employee cannot<\/p>\n
    be    removed by the management without recourse to                       rules<\/p>\n
    36, 37 or if the employee is to be declared surplus then<\/p>\n
    it must be done in accordance with rule 28.                     He draws my<\/p>\n
    attention      to     the judgment in the case of Farhana                   Banu<\/p>\n
    Mohammed      Ayub    v\/s.       Jadeed Anjuman-E-Taleem             &    Ors.,<\/p>\n
    2008(4) ALL MR 69 in support of his submission that once<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                         : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    the    respondent is a deemed permanent employee he                        could<\/p>\n
    not    have been removed without following the due process<\/p>\n
    of law.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          The    learned      advocate      for the     respondent           has<\/p>\n
    taken    me    through the record and proceeding before                        the<\/p>\n
    school      tribunal.         The   record indicates         that       several<\/p>\n
    documents         were    filed     by      both   the    parties.             The<\/p>\n
    respondent         had    filed     marksheets       of    the        students<\/p>\n
    pertaining        to    the    academic years 1996-97.              In     fact,<\/p>\n
    these marksheets are dated 1.5.1997 and have been signed<\/p>\n
    by the respondent as the class teacher and countersigned<\/p>\n
    by    the    Principal.         These     Marksheets      relate        to     the<\/p>\n
    students      of the 5th standard.            The learned advocate for<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner submits that these marksheets appear                           to<\/p>\n
    be    fabricated        because the original marksheets for                    the<\/p>\n
    same    class      and    for the same period do           not      bear       the<\/p>\n
    respondent’s        signature.         He    submits that        this      would<\/p>\n
    indicate      that he was not working in the school upto May<\/p>\n
    1997 as contended.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Admittedly,        these     documents relied on            by     the<\/p>\n
    advocate      for      petitioners were not produced before                    the<\/p>\n
    School       Tribunal.          The      School    Tribunal         therefore<\/p>\n
    proceeded on the basis of the marksheets produced by the<\/p>\n
    respondent.         The other document as produced before                      the<\/p>\n
    Tribunal      was the time table which bore the name of                        the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    teachers      for      the specific periods for which they                  were<\/p>\n
    attended         the    class.     The     timetable      filed        by     the<\/p>\n
    petitioner does not bear the name of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         It    appears that muster rolls pertaining to this<\/p>\n
    period      were    produced      by the      Petitioners       before        the<\/p>\n
    School Tribunal.          However, the School Tribunal according<\/p>\n
    to    the    learned advocate appearing for the                 petitioners<\/p>\n
    has    not    taken cognisance of that document.                  The     other<\/p>\n
    document      relied on is an extract from the muster                     rolls<\/p>\n
    indicating        that the respondent had been terminated from<\/p>\n
    service in June, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         In    my opinion, the Tribunal has considered                     all<\/p>\n
    these documents in the proper perspective.                    The Tribunal<\/p>\n
    has     committed         no    error    by    concluding         that        the<\/p>\n
    termination        of    service    was    illegal.       In      fact,       the<\/p>\n
    documents         which    are    produced       indicate         that        the<\/p>\n
    respondent         was    working    even       after    the      so     called<\/p>\n
    termination order was passed by the petitioners in March<\/p>\n
    1996.       The    School      Tribunal has considered            all     these<\/p>\n
    aspects      of the matter and has held that the                  respondent<\/p>\n
    is entitled to reinstatement in service.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The School Tribunal has also considered the fact<\/p>\n
    that    the      petitioners      had     contended      that      they       had<\/p>\n
    terminated the services of the respondent by issuing him<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                           : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    a    letter dt.         29.3.1996.      The School Tribunal has noted<\/p>\n
    the    fact    that         the    endorsement on    the      letter        dated<\/p>\n
    29.3.1996      which         was    puportedly the signature             of     the<\/p>\n
    respondent        did       not    match with his    signature           on     the<\/p>\n
    Vakalatnama        filed       in    the appeal.     The      Tribunal          has<\/p>\n
    matched      the       signature which the Petitioners               claim        is<\/p>\n
    that    of    the       Respondent with the        other      documents           on<\/p>\n
    record      The Tribunal has concluded that the                   endorsement<\/p>\n
    on    the    letter         dated    29.3.1996 was not        that       of     the<\/p>\n
    respondent.            In    these circumstances, the Tribunal                  has<\/p>\n
    held,    and      in     my    view    rightly,    that     there        was      no<\/p>\n
    termination        of<\/p>\n
                                service    in 1996 as    contended           by     the<\/p>\n
    Petitioners.           The termination of service was effected in<\/p>\n
    July    1997.      The Tribunal has considered the evidence on<\/p>\n
    record      and    has       rightly held that the         termination            of<\/p>\n
    service      is illegal as it was effected in breach of                         the<\/p>\n
    provisions of law.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         The    submission of the learned advocate for                       the<\/p>\n
    Petitioners is           that in any event they cannot               reinstate<\/p>\n
    the    respondent           because the additional division of                  the<\/p>\n
    6th    standard         is directed to be closed and,               therefore,<\/p>\n
    there    is    no vacancy available in order to appoint                         the<\/p>\n
    respondent.            He    emphasises the ratio laid down by                  the<\/p>\n
    learned      Single         Judge in the case of Head Master,                  Amar<\/p>\n
    High School, Aurangabad & anr.                v\/s.   Lata d\/o.           Gajanan<\/p>\n
    Suryawanshi        &    anr.,       2005(1) Mh.L.J.       1150.        In      this<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                        : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    judgment,      the    learned Single Judge has held              that       the<\/p>\n
    services    of a teacher on probation can be                discontinued<\/p>\n
    even    though    his    performance during        the      probationary<\/p>\n
    period was satisfactory.            It is held that if there is no<\/p>\n
    vacancy    available        for    confirming the      probationer            on<\/p>\n
    account of reduction in the strength of the students the<\/p>\n
    question    of confirming the probationery service against<\/p>\n
    any    existing      post could not be conceded.            The      learned<\/p>\n
    Judge    has    held    that      in a given    case,     although          the<\/p>\n
    provisions      of    section      5(3)    of the MEPS      Act      do     not<\/p>\n
    envisage    such a contingency, there was no legal bar for<\/p>\n
    discontinuation        of
\n                             ig  a    probationer     in    employment            on<\/p>\n
    account    of    non-availibility of the post.              The      learned<\/p>\n
    Judge    has    held    that a teacher who has          completed           his<\/p>\n
    probationary      period in service need not be confirmed if<\/p>\n
    there    was no existing vacancy either at the time of his<\/p>\n
    probationery      period      ended    or little before.             In     the<\/p>\n
    facts     of     that    case,       the    management      decided           to<\/p>\n
    discontinue the services of the employee on 4.1.1998 and<\/p>\n
    the probationery period was to be completed on 8.1.1998.\n<\/p>\n
    It    is in these facts and circumstances that the learned<\/p>\n
    Judge    has held that the services of the employee                     could<\/p>\n
    be    terminated even though she had completed the                     period<\/p>\n
    of probation.\n<\/p>\n
    14.       In    my    opinion, the facts in the           present         case<\/p>\n
    before    me    are clearly distinguishable from                the     facts<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                         : 11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    obtaining      in     Amar    High School’s      case     (supra).            The<\/p>\n
    respondent      herein       was    appointed    even     prior        to     the<\/p>\n
    approval      being    granted for the additional division                      of<\/p>\n
    the    6th    standard.        His order of      appointment           clearly<\/p>\n
    mentions      that he was appointed in a clear and permanent<\/p>\n
    vacancy      on probation for a period of 2 years                  teaching.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
    respondent      that    the respondent was appointed only                     for<\/p>\n
    the    purpose      of teaching in the additional division                      of<\/p>\n
    the 6th standard cannot be accepted.                Furthermore, it is<\/p>\n
    seen    from    the    record       before    the    Court        that        the<\/p>\n
    respondent has taught not only the 6th standard but also<\/p>\n
    the    other classes during the period of his service.                          In<\/p>\n
    these    circumstances, the contention of the                   petitioners<\/p>\n
    that the services of the respondent had to be terminated<\/p>\n
    because      of the reduced strength of the students in                       the<\/p>\n
    6th    standard cannot be accepted.             If indeed there was a<\/p>\n
    reduced      strength of students then it was necessary                       for<\/p>\n
    the    petitioners      to follow the procedure under Rule                      26<\/p>\n
    for    declaring      the     respondent surplus         on     account         of<\/p>\n
    abolition      of    posts.        However,   the    petitioners            have<\/p>\n
    failed    to    do so and are now attempting to take                     refuge<\/p>\n
    under    the direction issued by the Education Officer for<\/p>\n
    terminating the services of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    15.       The    decision       to terminate the services                of     an<\/p>\n
    employee rests solely with the management of the school.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                             : 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    Assuming          the       Education    Officer   had      decided         not      to<\/p>\n
    approve          of    the     appointment    of   the      respondent,            the<\/p>\n
    petitioner            could     not have consequently terminated                   the<\/p>\n
    services          of    the respondent in view of the judgment                       of<\/p>\n
    the Full Bench in the case of St.Ulai High School & anr.\n<\/p>\n
    v\/s.         Devenraprasad           Jagannath Singh,       2007(1)         Mh.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
    597.
\n    597         The       petitioners       are   required        to     follow        the<\/p>\n
    mandatory         procedure       laid down in the MEPS Act and                    the<\/p>\n
    Rules       framed thereunder while terminating the                       services<\/p>\n
    of     an    employee.         Not having done so,          the      petitioners<\/p>\n
    cannot       contend now that the services of the                      respondent<\/p>\n
    had been legally terminated.\n<\/p>\n
    16.          Besides         this,    the management tried to               contend<\/p>\n
    before       the       Tribunal that the services of the                  employee<\/p>\n
    were terminated on account of his poor conduct.                             However<\/p>\n
    there       is    no material on record to establish this                        fact<\/p>\n
    nor     is    there         any material on record to            indicate          the<\/p>\n
    nature       of       the    misconduct, if any,     committed              by     the<\/p>\n
    respondent.            Assuming he had committed a misconduct then<\/p>\n
    it     was necessary for the petitioners to hold an enquiry<\/p>\n
    as provided under the MEPS Rules.\n<\/p>\n
    17.          In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal cannot be<\/p>\n
    faulted       for the view that it has taken.                  The respondent<\/p>\n
    is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                                      : 13 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    18.       As     regards     the     backwages,      the      petitioners<\/p>\n
    contend    that the employee had been paid his salary from<\/p>\n
    November      1995 till his services were terminated.                     That<\/p>\n
    being the position, the Tribunal has justifiably granted<\/p>\n
    backwages to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    19.       I    do   not    see   any    reason     to     exercise          the<\/p>\n
    extraordinary       jurisdiction of this Court under Articles<\/p>\n
    226   and 227 of the Constitution of India in the present<\/p>\n
    case.\n<\/p>\n
    20.       The<\/p>\n
                     Education Officer has surprisingly filed an<\/p>\n
    affidavit      which merely paraphrases the decision in                     the<\/p>\n
    appeal.       The   affidavit is vague and based on                surmises<\/p>\n
    and   conjectures.        A ludicrous averment has been made in<\/p>\n
    the   affidavit that the Presiding Officer of the                      School<\/p>\n
    Tribunal      had   lost    sight    of the   possibility            of     the<\/p>\n
    Respondent      signing     differently on the appeal memo                  and<\/p>\n
    the   endorsement      on    the letter of     termination.               This<\/p>\n
    averment      is nothing but a conjecture on the part of the<\/p>\n
    affiant    i.e.      the    Deputy     Education       Officer,         Zilla<\/p>\n
    Parishad, Kolhapur.\n<\/p>\n
    21.       In    these circumstances, the order of the School<\/p>\n
    Tribunal is upheld.         Rule discharged.       No costs.\n<\/p>\n
    22.       Learned     advocate for the Petitioner seeks                   stay<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span>
\n                               : 14 :<\/span><\/p>\n
    of this order.   Stay granted for eight weeks.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:54:13 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008 Bench: Nishita Mhatre vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3235 OF 1999 The Chairman, Shri Maharani Radhabai Vidyarthi Vasatigraha & Anr. … Petitioners V\/s. Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale & Anr. … Respondents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2656,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\",\"name\":\"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008"},"wordCount":2656,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008","name":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale ... on 25 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-30T19:59:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-chairman-vs-shri-mahadev-murlidhar-ganbawale-on-25-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Chairman vs Shri Mahadev Murlidhar Ganbawale … on 25 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}